SOURCE: “Laurence Gronlund: Contributions to American Socialism,” in The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1962, pp. 618-24.

[In the following essay, Maher describes the influence of the largely neglected thinker, Laurence Gronlund, on nineteenth-century American socialism.]

Laurence Gronlund is responsible for three significant contributions to American socialism: first, a theoretical adaptation of German socialism to the American milieu; second, a substantial influence on Edward Bellamy; and, third, an effective criticism of the theories of Henry George. Although assessed as one of the most influential advocates of socialism in the late nineteenth century,¹ Gronlund is virtually unknown today. In order to indicate the reasons for his importance, this article sketches in broad outline Gronlund's three principal contributions to American socialism.

Gronlund, a post-Civil War Danish immigrant, was associated at one time or another with Icarianism, Bellamyite Nationalism, the Socialist Labor party, and the American Fabian Society. Teacher, lecturer, editor, and author, Gronlund's prime works were The Co-operative Commonwealth (1884), Our Destiny (1890), and The New Economy (1898.)²

I

The first contribution of Laurence Gronlund to American socialism is his theoretical adaptation of German socialism to the American milieu. Believing that the economic, social, and political conditions in the United States and Great Britain were ideal for the establishment of a socialistic state, Gronlund realized that there was no standard work in English which explained the basic tenets of scientific socialism.³ His primary objective in writing The Co-operative Commonwealth was, therefore, to present a clear and concise exposition of the theories of German socialism which would be readily acceptable to both the American and British minds.

My book claims to be an exposition of Socialism—modern Socialism, German Socialism, which is fast becoming the Socialism the world over. … The German Socialism I have subjected to a sort of winnowing process, separating that which is distinctively German from what is universally true; then, moulded the latter into a compact, logical system, and tried to show that this system is in line with the most advanced and soundest Anglo-Saxon ideas; my objective has been, in other words, to lead Socialism into the main current of [American and] English thought.⁴

Gronlund's adaptation of the “three cornerstones of scientific socialism—the materialistic concept (or economic interpretation) of history, the class struggle, and surplus value”⁵ are evident in his theory of economics, his theory of history, and his program of action.

Proposing a theory of economics identical with that of Karl Marx, Gronlund summarized, simplified, and presented in Anglo-American style and expression, the principles which Marx set forth in the first volume of Capital.⁶ Foremost among these basic principles was, of course, the theory of surplus value. Gronlund's exposition of Marxist economic theories was exceptionally brief. Yet, its similarity to the theories of Marx is readily apparent; and Gronlund himself admitted that this was “the part for which I am most indebted to German Socialism.”⁷

The general outline of Gronlund's theory of history was based primarily on the “Communist Manifesto.” Relating all progress to the economic condition of man, Gronlund clung to the central theme of Marx's.⁸ He also accepted the Marxist position that the working classes are necessarily exploited under the capitalistic system⁹ and insisted with Marx that capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.¹⁰ In contradistinction to Marx, Gronlund denied that socialism was a class movement¹¹ and rejected the class-struggle thesis.¹²

Finally, while the destruction of the capitalistic system and the evolution of the socialist era were inevitable, yet Gronlund agreed with Marx that an element of human cooperation in the process was required.¹³ Nevertheless, having rejected the class-struggle thesis, Gronlund went on to delineate a program of action which proscribed violence and bloodshed and propounded a revolution of peaceful persuasion.¹⁴ Inasmuch as the revolution was primarily “a contest of ideas,”¹⁵ men had to be intellectually convinced before they would wholeheartedly support the movement. But, since the majority of men would never be moved to effect the great change, the revolution must be accomplished by an enthusiastic and convinced minority, drawn from all classes of society.¹⁶ Gronlund's purpose was to convince such a minority.¹⁷

To summarize, in adapting German socialism to the American milieu, Gronlund accepted two basic tenets of scientific socialism: namely, the theory of surplus value and the economic interpretation of history. But, he rejected the class-struggle thesis and violent revolution. Gronlund's adaptation also included a resort to moral motives for effecting social, economic, and political change; and his exhortations were often expressed in religious phraseology. “Gronlund thus brought the essential logic of German socialism into American thought, couched in a language that was understandable and acceptable to many reformers and fitted with a conclusion which, while departing from Marxism, was more applicable to the American temper and experience.”¹⁸

II

Gronlund's second contribution to American socialism is his influence on Edward Bellamy. Bellamy's utopian novel, Looking Backward,¹⁹ was a forceful impetus to the spread of socialistic ideas and ideals in the late nineteenth century. While the writings of Gronlund and other avowed socialists might be critically read and reluctantly accepted, Bellamy's presentation of socialism won such acclaim that it quickly became a best seller. Nationalist clubs, established to promote Bellamy's theories, sprang up across the country; and their influence was reflected in the increased strength of the Populist party in the 1892 presidential election.²⁰

The first to allege that he had influenced Bellamy was Gronlund himself. In the 1890 edition of The Co-operative Commonwealth, he wrote: “The happiest effect of my book is that it has led indirectly and probably unconsciously, to Mr. Bellamy's Looking Backward, the novel which without doubt has stealthily inoculated thousands of Americans with socialism, just because it ignored that name and those who have written on the subject.”²¹

Substantiating Gronlund's boast of influencing Bellamy is the fact that The Co-operative Commonwealth antedated Looking Backward by three years. The former was first published in 1884; the latter appeared in 1887. While precedence in time is no proof of influence (post hoc, ergo propter hoc), nevertheless, in view of the similarity of the two works, this extrinsic factor is significant.

A comparison of the theories expressed by Gronlund and Bellamy reveals a striking similarity. Both authors blame social and political abuses on the extreme individualism which manifested itself principally in a “cut-throat” economic order.²² Ruthless competition on the side of business allied with a culpable apathy (or laissez-faire policy) on the part of government leaves the masses in misery and despair.²³ Both Gronlund and Bellamy propose a re-establishment of the economic order on the principle of social cooperation.²⁴ They both believe that when poverty and insecurity are eliminated, social discrimination and political corruption will also disappear.²⁵ Both agree that the new economic order will evolve out of the old.²⁶ This evolution will manifest itself in the consolidation of industry by great monopolies and in the extension of government control through regulation and nationalization. The entire system will reach perfect fulfillment when government nationalizes all business and forms one “Big Trust.”²⁷

Even in details, Gronlund's cooperative commonwealth and Bellamy's utopia are almost identical. For example, both eliminate state governments, political parties, lawyers, and the jury system; both advocate universal education, the development of natural aptitudes, the economic emancipation of women, and the rating of officials according to the efficiency of their subordinates.²⁸

The similarity between the two books far outweighs the differences. Gronlund himself points out, however, that there are three major differences between his work and Bellamy's:

It should, however, in justice to the cause, be stated, that there are three ideas in that novel for which socialism should not be held responsible. … These are a love for militarism, equal wages, and appointments by the retired functionaries. They are decidedly unsocialistic notions, belong exclusively to Mr. Bellamy, and will be further noticed in the course of this volume.²⁹

Despite these differences, the over-all similarity between the two works seems to sustain Gronlund's contention. Whether Bellamy was influenced consciously or unconsciously by Gronlund is irrelevant here. The fact is that Gronlund's influence on Bellamy was substantial and that Bellamy's widespread acceptance indirectly augmented Gronlund's importance.

III

The third contribution of Laurence Gronlund to American socialism is his effective criticism of the theories of Henry George. In 1884, Gronlund lauded George's Progress and Poverty³⁰ as a “book that has enticed very many persons very far out on the road of Socialism.”³¹ Gronlund recognized that George had rendered a great service to socialism by proving the right of the state to hold all land as common property and the absurdity of the Malthusian theory of population.³² However, even at this time, Gronlund took issue with George over the latter's emphasis on the land question. To confiscate rent, Gronlund warned, was to begin “at the wrong end.”³³

The main criticism which Socialists have to make on this [George's] work is that it pushes the land question—in America, especially, but even in Great Britain, a secondary question in importance—so much into the foreground that sight is lost of the principal question: who should control the instruments of production and transportation? It is, however, a most curious fact that its author should be an American. To start the solution of the social problems in our States, where as yet the great majority of farmers own the land which they cultivate, even if it is generally mortgaged to its full value, with a proposition to divest all landowners of their titles, is to commence by making a very large portion of the workers to be benefited hostile to all social change.³⁴

Gronlund's criticism of George was not particularly vehement, however, until after the colorful, but bitter 1886 mayoralty campaign in New York City. In that year, the socialists united with other labor groups to form the United Labor party. Henry George received the party's nomination for mayor and carried the United Labor party's standard against Tammany's Abram S. Hewitt and Republican Theodore Roosevelt. New York socialists campaigned vigorously for George, despite the fact that the party platform, which had been bolted together by George, overemphasized the land-tax and obviously slighted labor issues. The socialists believed that nationalization of land would be a strong foundation stone in the erection of a socialist state. Although Hewitt emerged the victor, Tammany had been forced to employ every maneuver of political strategy against the only formidable opponent, Henry George. Almost half of George's 67,000 votes had been cast by socialists; they constituted a political bloc which could not be ignored.³⁵

When the smoke of the campaign had cleared, George and his associates attempted to strengthen and rebuild the party. This reorganization commenced with a determination to purge the party of all radical factions, notably the socialists. It was at this time that Gronlund forcefully attacked George. His criticisms were published in two pamphlets, The Insufficiency of Henry George's Theory and Socialism vs. Tax Reform: An Answer to Henry George.³⁶

In the first of these treatises, Gronlund expressed his appreciation of George's contribution to the promotion of socialism by referring to George as “the entering wedge for our ideas into American minds.”³⁷ Nevertheless, Gronlund maintained that, although the doctrines of George embodied partial truth, they were too narrow and one-sided and that his “remedy” would prove both impractical and inadequate. Protesting that the arguments of George were one-sided, Gronlund challenged George's main thesis, that the landowner alone benefited from the material progress of civilization. This contention Gronlund considered to be a “most astonishing piece of self-deception.”³⁸ He agreed that the landowner receives an “unearned increment,” but he maintained that the capitalist, too, benefited from material prosperity. Gronlund pointed out that, although the capitalist did not necessarily increase the rate of interest, the amount of his income increased steadily. Therefore, both the landowner and the capitalist profit from civilization's material progress. The laborer, on the other hand, does not receive a proportional share of the world's wealth. This argument shattered George's contention that labor and capital are “twin-sisters” struggling for survival against the avaricious landowner.³⁹

Not only were George's theories too narrow, but his “remedy” of confiscating all rent was inadequate and would “not accomplish all that he predicts when reduced to practice.”⁴⁰ Gronlund presented four objections to the land-tax remedy. George insisted that a constitutional amendment was not necessary in order to make the land-tax effective. Gronlund, a lawyer, was convinced that the land-tax program could not be undertaken without such an amendment. Therefore, he contended that since the Constitution must be changed, it would be far better to campaign for complete, instead of partial, socialism.⁴¹ Moreover, George's remedy would deprive the landowner of his possessions without compensation while allowing the wealth of the capitalist to remain untouched; but Gronlund believed that this was an injustice.⁴² Furthermore, George insisted that from the land-tax only enormous revenues would flow into the government treasury. Yet George had never framed a budget on this single tax. Gronlund proved from statistics that this tax would never cover the cost of operating the local, state, and federal governments, let alone provide sufficient capital to make the improvements which George described in his writings.⁴³ Finally, Gronlund protested that George was laboring under a delusion when he insisted that the welfare of the wage-earner would improve because rent would be confiscated. “A bare lot does not make a home.”⁴⁴ The laborer will remain dependent on his employer for wages; and, until wages rise above the subsistence level, the worker will never be housed comfortably.⁴⁵

The second pamphlet, Socialism vs. Tax Reform: An Answer to Henry George, not only supplemented Gronlund's first criticism but also spearheaded a counterattack on George's charges against socialism and socialists which appeared in The Standard.⁴⁶ In this pamphlet, Gronlund explained that the United Labor party selected Henry George as its candidate, not because of his economic doctrines, “but because of his well-known sympathy with the toiling masses.”⁴⁷ Gronlund demonstrated that the original platform adopted by the United Labor party included a condemnation of the existing wage system. However, George and his associates rewrote the platform, eliminating all references to this objective and substituting George's proposal for a single tax.⁴⁸

In this same treatise, Gronlund answered George's assertion that socialists lacked radicalism, that is, that socialists failed to go to the roots and to distinguish between land as a primary and capital as a derivative element of production. In response to this charge, Gronlund explained that both capital and land (valuable land), were derivative elements of production.⁴⁹

Finally, Gronlund warned the socialists and all the members of the United Labor party that George's remedy consisted of a tax-reform and not nationalization of land; that George was an extreme free-trader; and that, if George's proposals were adopted, the courts would undoubtedly rule that the taxing of land to its full value did not comprise taxation, but confiscation.⁵⁰

Gronlund's criticisms of the theories of Henry George figure as a definite contribution to American socialism. George's widespread popularity and his reputation as a crusader for the poorer classes made it difficult to explain to the average worker how and why the socialist position differed from that of George's. Moreover, Henry George had been supported by the socialists of New York City in the mayoralty campaign of 1886; and, for that reason, the rank-and-file socialist needed an explanation of the Socialist Labor party's sudden repudiation of George. Gronlund's two tracts answered this need perfectly. They were written in a popular style; the arguments presented were clear, concise, and simple; and the tracts were easily circulated since they were published in pamphlet form.

IV

“Now all but forgotten, Gronlund's writings were once widely read by intellectuals interested in socialism; [and] … from him the social-gospel prophets drew many of their ideas.”⁵¹ Although Laurence Gronlund's importance results from indirect rather than direct ascendancy, yet his adaptation of German socialism to the American milieu, his influence on Edward Bellamy, and his criticism of Henry George stand as significant contributions to American socialism.

Notes

1. Alan Pendleton Grimes, American Political Thought (2d ed. rev.; New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), p. 363.

2. Laurence Gronlund, The Co-operative Commonwealth (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1884), Our Destiny (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1890), and The New Economy (Chicago: Herbert S. Stone & Co., 1898).

3. The Co-operative Commonwealth (London: Swan Sonnenschein, LeBas & Lowrey, 1886), pp. ix and x. This was the only edition of the text readily available to the author in the preparation of this article. All references are to this edition unless otherwise noted.

4. Ibid., pp. ix-x.

5. Donald D. Egbert and Stow Persons (eds.) Socialism and American Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952), I, 76.

6. Karl Marx published the first volume of Capital in 1867. Frederick Engels published the second volume in 1885 and the third in 1894. Since the first edition of The Co-operative Commonwealth appeared in 1884, Gronlund was able to base his theory of economics only on the first volume. The Co-operative Commonwealth, pp. 17-36.

7. Ibid., p. x.

8. Ibid., p. 74.

9. Ibid., pp. 54-56.

10. Ibid., p. 72.

11. Ibid., pp. xi and 37.

12. Ibid., pp. 37 and 60-61. For a further discussion of Gronlund's rejection of the class-struggle thesis, see Howard H. Quint, The Forging of American Socialism (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1953), pp. 28, 78, 240, 277, and 317.

13. The Co-operative Commonwealth, pp. 74 and 251-52.

14. Ibid., pp. 252-54.

15. Ibid., p. 254.

16. Ibid., pp. xiii-xiv and 252-59.

17. Ibid., p. xiii.

18. Grimes, op cit., p. 369.

19. Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward: 2000-1887 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1887).

20. Grimes, op. cit., p. 343.

21. The Co-operative Commonwealth (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1890), p. viii. Gronlund's claim of influencing Bellamy is supported by Howard H. Quint, op. cit., pp. 30 and 78, and by Frederick R. White in an introduction to Bellamy's Looking Backward (Chicago: Packard, 1946), p. xvii. All references are to this edition.

    On the contrary, Arthur E. Morgan is opposed to this viewpoint. Not only does he deny that Gronlund inspired Bellamy, but he reverses the contention, maintaining that it was Bellamy who influenced Gronlund. Cf. Arthur E. Morgan, Edward Bellamy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), pp. 242, 372, 388-89.

    Gronlund's amicable relations with Bellamy are evidenced in his attempt to promote the sale of Bellamy's Looking Backward by ordering the sale of his own book temporarily halted and by his literary contributions to Bellamy's magazine, The Nationalist. Morgan, op. cit., p. 389.

22. The Co-operative Commonwealth, pp. 38 and 72; Looking Backward, p. 28.

23. The Co-operative Commonwealth, p. 54; Looking Backward, pp. 34-38, 40.

24. The Co-operative Commonwealth, p. 75; Looking Backward, pp. 39 and 82.

25. The Co-operative Commonwealth, pp. 226-47; Looking Backward, pp. 41 and 91.

26. The Co-operative Commonwealth, pp. 55-57, 60; Looking Backward, p. 33.

27. The Co-operative Commonwealth, pp. 106-11; Looking Backward, pp. 38-39.

28. The Co-operative Commonwealth, pp. 158, 165, 187, 181, 211, 113, 194, and 168; Looking Backward, pp. 143-44, 41, 140, 142, 150-55, 44, 177-84, and 88.

29. The Co-operative Commonwealth (Boston, 1890), p. viii.

30. Henry George, Progress and Poverty (San Francisco: W. M. Hinton & Co., 1879).

31. The Co-operative Commonwealth, p. 103.

32. Ibid., pp. 86 and 128.

33. Ibid., p. 120.

34. Ibid., pp. 86-87.

35. Quint, op. cit., pp. 37-43.

36. Laurence Gronlund, The Insufficiency of Henry George's Theory (New York: New York Labor News Company, 1887); and Socialism vs. Tax-Reform: An Answer to Henry George (New York: New York Labor News Company, 1887). The tenor of Gronlund's personal relations with George is obscure, but the nature and circumstances of their controversy suggest that it was less than friendly.

37. The Insufficiency of Henry George's Theory, p. 1.

38. Ibid., p. 3.

39. Ibid., pp. 2-7.

40. Ibid., p. 8.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid., pp. 8-10.

44. Ibid., p. 12.

45. Ibid., pp. 10-12.

46. Henry George was founder as well as editor-in-chief of The Standard. Quint, op. cit., p. 44.

47. Socialism vs. Tax-Reform, p. 1.

48. Ibid., p. 19.

49. Ibid., pp. 19-20.

50. Ibid., pp. 20-35.

51. Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), pp. 114-15.